Opinion
January 19, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Green, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding. The disciplinary proceedings fully complied with the dictates of due process and the applicable State rules and regulations (7 N.Y.CRR part 250 et seq.; Wolff v McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539; Pino v Dalsheim, 605 F. Supp. 1305). The petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer's determination was not supported by substantial evidence is raised for the first time on appeal and therefore is not properly before us. In any case, the Hearing Officer's determination was based upon substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139). In this case, the correction officer who filed the report of misbehavior against the petitioner testified at the hearing. The essential issue was credibility, and the Hearing Officer was entitled to credit the charging officer's version of the events (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 616).
The petitioner's remaining claim, that the Supreme Court deprived him of his right to present evidence in support of his CPLR article 78 petition, is unsupported by the record which indicates that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to present his case. The petitioner did not offer any further evidence nor request an opportunity to do so. Both the disciplinary proceeding and the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 were conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Accordingly, we affirm. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.